Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1887-04-08
The Sheritf's Reply to the Charges Of
the Grand Jury.

Mr.. Editor AS ysu have published th
Report of the Grand Jury, hope you will
allow me to say few words through you
columns in selfdefence, as they make sew.
eral charges against me and my deputies.
Now, in the first place, they recommend
the Court to instruct the Sheriff to be more
diligent in collecting the local option fines
Now there is not single fine imposed by
our Court that has not been settled up, SO
far as the county is interested, and had as
well state for the benefit of the citizens OF
Montgomery county that as soon as fine
is imposed the party who is fined is placed
by the Court in the hands ofthe Sheriff, and
If he fails to collect the same, he (the Sher-
| iff) is the loser, and not the county, as they
would make it appear by their report
Now one of the committee who had this
| special duty in charge was for long time
an officer of the county, and ought to be
conversant with the mode of collecting fines
in all cases, whether before Magistrate or
the Circuit Court, therefore his report to the
jury was either made with malicious in.
tent or through ignorance, but which it is
am not to be the Judge, but leave it for the
people of the county to judge for themselves.
But the Court has not given the Sheriff any
order, as yet, to be more diligent in collect
ing the fines, knowing, as they do, that the
Sheriff is held for all such fines.
To substantiate what has been said in ref
erence TO the fines | will here insert the GER
tificate from the Clerk of the County Com
missloners, to whom all fines in the local
option cases are payable. 1t will speak for
itself,
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Montgomery county, to wit;
hereby certify that there are NO fines,
imposed for violation of the Local Option
law, due Montgomery county, as all have
been collected and paid to the Board of
County Commissioners.
In testimony whereof hereunto sign my
name aud affix the Seal OF the County Com.
missisners, this 9th day of April, A. d.,
1887.
Jos. A. TANEY,
Clerk to County Commissioners
They close their report by saying that
through the neglect OF the ohicers they had
to adjourn without examining large mum.
Der OF important witnesses. Now this is d.
rect charge against me and my deputies and
IT is this one that am more particular to
fully explain and show the facts rs they
are
was informed by one of the Jurors on
Friday, 25th of March, that they had fin
ished up all the business before them except
examining the Jail and Aims House, which
they would do the next morning Saturday,
AND ask to be discharged. Up to this time
every summons that was issued for witnesses
to go before the Grand Jury had been prop.
erly returned to the Clerk, and here annex
4 certificate from the Clerk, which will show
what has been said in this respect is correct,
and in the face Of these facts we can only
come to one conclusion, that is, the jury has
made u false charge against both me and nay
deputies. Following is the said certificate
ROCKVILLE, MD, April 6, 1897
This is to certify that all summonses is
sued the first week Of the present Term of
Court for witnesses to appear before the
Grand Jury were properly returned by the
Sheriff during said week
JAMES ANDERSON,
Clerk Circuit Court
The witnesses they claim they had to ad
jsurn without examining were not ordered
10 be summoned, or at least large number
of them, until Tuesday evening, and all of
these were in a remote part Of the county.
When say they were not ordered, | mean
by the foreman, for as soon as they were
sent Down TO the Clerk he at once issued
them in my presence, and | at once for
warded them to the deputy in charge OF the
district in which they, (the witnesses), lived
New, if they did not intend to give us a
reasonable time to serve these summonses
they should not have sent them cut.
One OF the jurors offers an apology for
this report, ia the words that they only had
about thirty minutes tO make up their re.
port, and he thought if they could have had
more time it would have been different
Now, they asked TO be discharged about
noon, and am sure not one of them took
less than a full days pay for that day, theg
fore they might have gone back for twoe
three heurs in the afternoon and made d
correct report, as they could not De the losers
financially, and might have, after little
delberati0n, done the officers of the Court
justice. w. b. MILLER,
Sheriff of Montgomery county